1000000031

E L 1 G IO N,

01\

T TI E O L O G Y.

!iH'~

i!\

1 pa:r:flll

fO,fCh ;¡flcr

~¡'.it'.71 ~r

h:!i,:f.

:\nd

a,.tid~·1

'?!

¡:,iIÍl;

~n.1

1J.:tt

the}' Olould

(olega,

in tll,u

pUl fuil,

tlle

necd:'" r)'

olnces

lirt' .

t\nJ \hdr

dUlies

C"iL/.-: OS .

Thc

dog11li\s. then,

d fcnll,t!ly

nc..:clrJry to (he

wdf~re

nldll–

·J..iuj, ourlH

colnfiH of a

IÍn.dl

n~mhcr,

anu to bC:H

lhe:

m.nks

or li'llplicity

and perrpicnity; wi,hutH which lht

muH

iOl;cr[t.:ll.

and

conrcql1-:-,~lIy

lile:

work

c,f

man o

Our m–

tenllon,

in'l1l<1king this

rCIIl.

ark ,

¡s, to e:xtl nd our \'oice,

be pc ljihic::, even

poHerHy,

wham

we \'Io\lld conjure

nal lO injurt: our religion, (o

holy ílnd

admil :lble, by

nl~~ltirlid(y

of do¡:roas.

n<.cc-{f:.ry.

howc\·er,

th'H

lhe

di, in!',

~·ho

l1lí\kes

his tluJy anJ his profdlion, rhollld be

th('lrt\ughly

:\cqu:'Iioted with

lhe

theory of lhis {clence.

ordl!r dlat he may be able tO inllrut t the lincerc

Chrini~n,

ami tO explain the nature of

e~ch

panicul ar dogma, a5 well

lhe ColiJity of its proofs; and lO litis it is that (he fludy

(he

dogm:uic lcads

of which

we thall

now continue

(he

analyfi,.

V Thc

dogmatic is lhen nOlhing but

11 fuccinn

~xp'¡;{ion

al/ lh,

d~f"Ja¡

of Ih, Chnflian

u¡'g um,

Dnaltlr.l/ alld

philofoph i<al ord, r.

the wo,d pltilofophie, we do no'

h:re precl{eJ y mean the methoJ of millhematicianl , in lhe

manner the lote M . Wolff has applied i,

philofophy; e·

nr)" fuojeél is nOI eapable of a demooflration fo

ex.él

. nd

rigid; but,,, regular order is

n~quired

in lhe arrangement of

the general {yftem, and a conneélion is tO be preCerved io

the Ct:veral maners that form it : the definitions lhould be

jurt¡ the di"ifions exatt

the argumenu Colid

the proofs

cien; lhe citations conclufive; the examples Ilriking¡ and,

in a word, e,ery thing fhould be addueed that oppmains tO

(o important a di!cipline.

Jt is very elfeMial, moreover, in the dogmatic, at the

beginning of each therts,

explain the {everal terms thal

are peculiar to it_ and lhat uCe ha, ellabldhed in treating of

theology

te draw from

ea.ch

definiuon eenain axioms. ó\nd

(rom thence to form propofitinns, aod to íIIuUrate them by

(olid realoning . L . ll ly, we fhould not ncgleél in fueh a

fyflem, 10 m. ke ufe of the exprellions ufed in the fymbolic

books that have becn reeeived by the woole Chriflian ehureh,

; nd which cannot be rejeéled or altered, without caufing

confur.on

in Our ideas, i\nd in the general {yllem of the

~hrill.ian

religion. BUl. bdore \!le moke Ihe Je::.fl advanee

In the fludyof Chriflian theology. it is indifpenf.bly oecef

{~r'y

to examine Ihe proofs

which the trulh, the authen·

tlClty, and tbedivlOity of the Cacred and canonical books are

enablilhed ; for this i. Ihe foundation of.1I the dogmas

2nd lhe axis

which its whoJe doétrioe turos.

VI.

T he fyfl cmatie pa" of the Chriflian religion, among

the

great number of ils dogmas or tht Ces, has

Ihru prin·

cipal,

from which all the refl are derived, and whieh form

Ihe b.fis of its whole doétrine :

Thc

exiflence of one Cod in three perCons.

T he neceffity of a Mediator or Redeemer.

3·

The real 'ppearance of the Mediator or Melliah on

Ihe e..rth .

Whocver write" profdTes, or (caches the dogmatic,

!h0uld be, aboye all things, earefu l wel! to ellahlint th. fe

Jm,P0rtant truths

t O

e"i~ce

them by the firongcH and moH

eVld~nl

proofs, dr::.wn panly from lhe liChts of rearon,

2.nd

p:. rtl y from rcvelauon: f\nd he willlhcn Cee, with what

foleili,y all oth" thefes

Row

from, .nd how ••f, it wiU be

t o

prrj\,e thcm

by,

thtfo.

VO L. 1!l No?!.

VII , T hc:

i r.~lIite

\'tlri\!lj' th;u

is (,moti

:lmon~

r.1:'1;):"',n1

t.~)Clr

manner of lhi¡,king. and in lhtlr nH,th(,d

:.IIII)·~

CuLJe\'ts; Ihe

frcqucOl

chal12es

tllal

h;t\·c

h<! I'P(·Ih..J III

t:.:

eXh.:rior

(()1m or

rAlilofopby, and in lhe

mt!thod

(,r

" c~ti ng

Ihe oppoJitiuns th.H

h otVC

bren ralrto. at

all

tinlC!s

a ·

g:\lnU

dlvtrs dottrincs of the Ch rirli;.¡n rehglOn;

,di tl ,de

h;l.'e

produced,

al~llng

theol0:l,ans, difierent fy!1 ..:-ms of

dog01atic. SOOlttlmtS l!ley

h..

,'c

lomh:ned

¡fluve

thCI¡Jn·

gy with moralil)'1 and llave formcd " fyllt.:m

Ih:H they e,d l

Iht ojr,gia Ih!Of" lico-pran iro,

IJle% g id Ih(/ic?·III",r:d iJ.

&c.:

lf)nH~(lmCS

they have refuted Ihe argutnl'nts thlt

otl~ers

ol'PoCe

certain

thcfLS;

:ind (rom thence Ilrts :Irolc

lyOcm

Ih..( !hey

c«JI

Ihet,/oJia

Ih~/ic(J,

d?gmalit'o.

f'?fi!itl~.

pO/(III!ca:

rOmetiOles chey have joincu

1I,llllr.\1 dlt"olo()'

th.tt

revelatioo; and have formed

dOf m;¡tic,

c,d!ed

p/¡iI.¡'phieo-llJ<ologiea :

ond

fo.of

the rell. Bot, bLfiJes

thar thefe difiinéllOns and ucooroinltions are! in themldves

pedantic,

al1

times more eligihle, in e\'ery (cience.

to avoid confounJ ing with

e~rh

other ehe leveral brandv's

of which ie confills. The ddTcrent dogmas. mor.¡!ity, phi–

Jofophy. and CODtrOVerCy, ar,e f\!pdTate artides; and

',\lhen

eh ot theCe parts or theology are Ceparatdy

tr~ated,

lhey

are

di(por~d

wi th more order io the mind, aod

greattc

light is d,ffufed over their feveral fubjea•.

VIII.

appears, moreover. from lhe fimI'Jcenr,m:r:\lion

th~t

have made, in

the

third Cd lion

lhe tllff..:n::nt

principies on which lhe dogmas of the Chrinian rdigion are

founded, that, to

thorollghly

acqu~inted

with ¡es

whol'!

theory, the ,heologian fhou ld .Ifo apply hirufclfto the lIudy

of the CYOlbolic books of its communion. and efpeeially

(hould be \Vel! verfed in the

er«d o/ de Apojlla;

tlw 01

Nic!

and

S I A lhallojiul;

lhe book calk-d

F'Irmula

cr;nCDr#

rJi.c;

the

T hef"

Ihe eouneí/of T r<nl

; the

ealechifv.·1of

LUlh,,;

the

eonfeJJi.n

AlIgjlMUrg ;

the

Arlicla of

SlIIalealdw;

th<

Calechifm of Heidelberg,

.lec.

T hat he

fhould be wel! .equainted with that parl of 'l heology th"

is c.lled

palrijliea :

th.1 is tO f, y, Ih" he ntould b< wdl

rcad in

the

fathers of

the

church

that he nlould nOl be

Ig·

norant even of

feholajlic Ih../ogy ;

that he n,ould

I..

know the frivolons {nlHilities and lhe complicaled mohod

of the ancient fcholaO ic divines. whieh was cerivcJ f,'OOl

Ihe philofophy of Arillode

on~

the fehools;

,h"

he Ihoul<l

make o ferious fludy of ,he

faered

oiflory of

,11

ag" , ,ho

coun,iI¡

¡fud

Jjl/(¡d¡;

that he (hould, abo\'e alJ, ncver

lofe fighl of

I.'alllral Iheology ;

and, lart ly, tha! it .is in–

difpenfably

neeelf.ry

th" he fhould procure a good b,bl,o–

theque or t re¡uifc of cccle!fiílrLical writers

which he may

con{ult occarionally, ·and

lcaro

from lhence

knu\V tht: bl

guides. The more •

theolo~iaD

applies himfdf tOall thefe

fubj eéts, lhe OIore ability he will acquire in Ihis fCit"OlC.

and the more pel-rt él

will be in lhe theory of

lh:tt re\¡·

gion which it is his

dUly

t('aeh

othcrs.

IX.

Revea!ed religion being founded (a, leafl in gre. 1

part )

'00

natura l religion. and philoCophy being the fLturre

froOl whence

l~C

principies and Ihe knowlcdge oí

Ihe

I:nrcr

are derived, it

i.,

C't'ideot thal pluloCophy is intim;ud y con·

ne(ted with theology : ne\'CTlhc:leCs, the aid of Ihe furmer is

to be cmployed Wllh precaution, and is nOl tO

reg~ , dt'd

as the (oundation of the thcological dogmJ.s, but ooly

;(S

lllt'an

Ly whíeh they

OIay

be expl:ünerl and cnforcc:.d.

TII\!

lJ oly Scriplu les conUiwle,

perpell.ló

\J1y, the t(ue bafis or

IL"

vcalcd theology: philoCophy cffeélu.lIy eoncur<, ho\Yo\',

6 T

' o

, Th0fc: of

Pio ano

'YillÍJm

Cave :'IfC mon ec:kbr.ltcu.